[hojjat12000]

I was recently watching a video on Doublespeak[0], one of the types of doublespeak is to bombard the audience with technical jargon which means you automatically win, unless they know more technical terms than you do! In your case, your comment does not mean anything to me (or probably 99% of the HN users). Instead of this, you could at least cite a reputable source for this claim, this would be 100 times more effective and also useful for the readers. Cheers.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP07oyFTRXc

[pocketgrok]

I get what you’re saying but I don’t think that’s what’s happening here at all. His main statement is that there’s an biological explanation which is perfectly comprehensible. Backing it with a link instead of stating the explanation himself may be preferable but that doesn’t mean he did it to shut anyone down or that it should have that affect.

[hojjat12000]

I understand that and I really really want to believe them. But this biological explanation could be obvious (to a biologist) or could be heavily controversial (among biologists). A reputable source would be helpful for us the non-biologist to know that this is either common knowledge or this is the SOTA, recent breakthrough, or simply disputed theory. That's what I was trying to say. Cheers.

[srean]

I found your tone entitled than the one you were responding to. No one here is under any obligation to spoon feed another. Comments are there, take it or leave it. In the era of search engines, if you care enough, you can do your own follow up.

I personally find this entitlement culture annoying. If one really wants more information and leads one can ask for that without a lecture about doublespeak

[harperlee]

A reputable source typically does not help non-experts dilucidate whether something is controversial in the field, except if the document specifically caters to non-experts. But then the information is watered down and analogies strain the actual information.

Sometimes it will be useful to provide appeals to authority as a shortcut to skeptical verification of internet facts, but it seems wrong to attack the fundamental basis of clear communication - asserting a clear and concrete statement that enables you to independently check if it's true or who thinks the same.

We can't go around the internet citation-needing every statement; you should find the equilibrium of faith-disbelief-verification that works for you, that's the only thing that scales.

[rhinoceraptor]

I get that it's slightly esoteric, but this is all pretty basic biochem/endocrinology.

Here's a small study that demonstrates that losing weight can increase fertility:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3177768/

Additionally, this mechanism is why drugs like clomifene and anastrazole work for male infertility.

[teachrdan]

Ha, "pretty basic biochem/endocrinology", followed by a link to a 10-year-old study of 43 men which concludes:

"This study found obesity to be associated with poor semen quality and altered reproductive hormonal profile. Weight loss may potentially lead to improvement in semen quality. Whether the improvement is a result of the reduction in body weight per se or improved lifestyles remains unknown."

[Animats]

It's just bio terminology. I can't tell if it's correct biology but the words are neither nonsense nor obscure.

[hojjat12000]

I did not say they are nonsense, or obscure. I said "technical jargon".

I said to most of the audience, this doesn't mean anything, and to those that this means something, they probably already know this anyways.

So, for the general public (non-biologists) you have to either explain it differently (at least don't use acronyms). or at least cite a reputable website so that we, normies, know you are not trolling!

[cwkoss]

This is a forum for technical discussion. Use google if you want to to understand something and you don't.

It is unreasonable and not the goal of this forum use a level of discourse here so that all comments can be understood by general public. This a bunch of nerds chatting, not US Weekly.

[cwkoss]

I think your comment, particularly your use of the phrase "bombard the audience with technical jargon", is a much better example of double speak than then comment you're replying to.

[rargulati]

rhinoceraptor gave such a clear explanation of the process, that I'd honestly pay for an entire set of bio and chem mechanic breakdowns prepared by them.

[mountainb]

It's not that esoteric... spend the same amount of time you did on watching that Youtube video on reading about the topic. Alternatively, search for questions on Youtube and you will have a similar explanation read out to you from a selection of 40,000 different bodybuilders.

[hojjat12000]

That video (which has nothing to do with biology, and is related to discussion and arguments, the thing we are doing now) is 16 minutes long. Are you seriously suggesting that with 16 minutes of reading biology I will know:

  * What is aromatase and what is the relationship between an overexpressed aromatase and excess body fat
  * What is estradiol and what is the possible reasons for converting testosterone to estradiol
  * What is the negative feedback loop in the hypothalamus and what is the interactions between estradiol and the hypothalamus' negative feedback loop
  * What is GnRH and what causes the lowering of my GnRH
  * What is LH/FSH and why is it obvious that low GnRH causes a lower LH/FSH
  * How are these related to fertility

All of this in 16 minutes?

IMPORTANT: To be honest I am willing to read (obviously more than 16 minutes) to learn about this stuff, as you can see in my comment, I'm asking for something to read! a link to a place that explains these. Even if it takes more than 16 minutes. Of course, I'm sure somewhere on the internet these information exist. But just writing a claim without any citation, is not helpful.

[srean]

Before asking for material to read you launched into a moral and self righteous lecture on doublespeak. I doubt whether that is the most effective or even a pleasant way to ask for information

[exolymph]

You can't outsource your judgment. Do the research yourself if you want to understand something.

[acdha]

Doesn't just about everyone outsource their judgement on a regular basis? Most people rely on others to do tasks they either cannot do at all or as efficiently because we trust that our doctor, lawyer, programmer, sysadmin, carpenter, electrician, auto mechanic, etc. has better judgement than we have time to acquire.

What makes that work is what the person you're replying to asked for: sources. I don't get medical advice from random strangers on the street, I get it from people who have credentials or organizations which hire those people. When I get a contractor, I'm looking at their licenses to assume that they at least know how to install a dishwasher to code.